The 100 Year Banishment Rule

jwoodie

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
21,579
Reaction score
10,740
Points
940
It is a truism that the histories of wars are written by the victors, but it also seems that cracks in the official narratives start to open about 100 years after these events. For example, the reasons (and blame) for WW1 have only recently become open topics of honest debate. In contrast, any discussion of WW2 is still required to prefaced by condemning everything done by the Nazis, while praising the heroic defenders of the British Empire. I may not be around to see it, but the unvarnished facts surrounding the causes of WW2 will eventually come to light.

As a preview, let's start with the fact that Great Britain declared war on Germany to start both World Wars despite absolutely no threat to her territories or vital interests. Before WW2, Hitler's sole objective was to recover German/Austrian territories that had been seized by the Western Allies after the Armistice ending WW1. After PM Chamberlain's embarrassment at Munich, he impulsively guaranteed Polish sovereignty over former German territory in western Poland. When Germany reoccupied this territory, Britain had to save face by declaring war on Germany.

After Britain's subsequent refusal to enter into any peace negotiations, Germany was forced to occupy France and the Low Countries in order to prevent Britain from establishing air bases there to bomb its Ruhr Valley industrial heartland. Even so, Britain continued to bomb German cities and factories until Germany initiated the Battle of Britain air war to stop it. After this was unsuccessful, Germany turned its attention eastward in order to secure more territory and resource that were outside the range of British bombers. If not for American intervention, the Soviet Union would have been defeated and WW2 might have had a different outcome.
 
It is a truism that the histories of wars are written by the victors, but it also seems that cracks in the official narratives start to open about 100 years after these events. For example, the reasons (and blame) for WW1 have only recently become open topics of honest debate. In contrast, any discussion of WW2 is still required to prefaced by condemning everything done by the Nazis, while praising the heroic defenders of the British Empire. I may not be around to see it, but the unvarnished facts surrounding the causes of WW2 will eventually come to light.

As a preview, let's start with the fact that Great Britain declared war on Germany to start both World Wars despite absolutely no threat to her territories or vital interests. Before WW2, Hitler's sole objective was to recover German/Austrian territories that had been seized by the Western Allies after the Armistice ending WW1. After PM Chamberlain's embarrassment at Munich, he impulsively guaranteed Polish sovereignty over former German territory in western Poland. When Germany reoccupied this territory, Britain had to save face by declaring war on Germany.

After Britain's subsequent refusal to enter into any peace negotiations, Germany was forced to occupy France and the Low Countries in order to prevent Britain from establishing air bases there to bomb its Ruhr Valley industrial heartland. Even so, Britain continued to bomb German cities and factories until Germany initiated the Battle of Britain air war to stop it. After this was unsuccessful, Germany turned its attention eastward in order to secure more territory and resource that were outside the range of British bombers. If not for American intervention, the Soviet Union would have been defeated and WW2 might have had a different outcome.
This is what Germans might say. But they lost the war.
 
Certain historical political icons will always be immune from criticism. Lincoln should have done everything in his power to avoid a Civil War but he let it happen because he thought it would be over in a month. FDR probably invited the Japanese attack so the U.S. could get into the "real war" in Europe. MacArthur was awarded the MOH after he abandoned his Army and left them to starvation and capture. Harry Truman refused to negotiate with the Japanese when he could have avoided dropping two nuclear devices. You could argue about any one of these issues but even a simple argument isn't allowed even after 100 years or more.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom